Now I think I shouldn’t mention hindsight bias, it doesn’t really fit here.
I’m just saying that some events would be more probably famous, like:
a) laymen posing extraordinary claim and ending up being right
b) group of experts being spectacularly wrong
If some group of experts met in 1960s and pose very cautious claims, chances are small that it would end up being widely known. And ending up in above paper.
Analysing famous predictions is bound to end up with many overconfident predictions—they’re just more flashy. But it doesn’t yet mean most of predictions are overconfident.
Very valid point. But overconfidence is almost universal, and estimates where selection bias isn’t an issue (duck as polls at conferences) seem to show it as well.
Now I think I shouldn’t mention hindsight bias, it doesn’t really fit here. I’m just saying that some events would be more probably famous, like: a) laymen posing extraordinary claim and ending up being right b) group of experts being spectacularly wrong
If some group of experts met in 1960s and pose very cautious claims, chances are small that it would end up being widely known. And ending up in above paper. Analysing famous predictions is bound to end up with many overconfident predictions—they’re just more flashy. But it doesn’t yet mean most of predictions are overconfident.
Very valid point. But overconfidence is almost universal, and estimates where selection bias isn’t an issue (duck as polls at conferences) seem to show it as well.